JUAN CASTILLO, AKA Juan Lopez, AKA Luis Lopez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN CASTILLO, AKA Juan Lopez, AKA
Luis Lopez,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72193
Agency No. A091-641-223
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Juan Castillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 7 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-72193
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, Cerezo v.
Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference
is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations,
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that even if Castillo was
eligible for asylum and withholding of removal, he did not suffer harm rising to the
level of persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir.
2009) (being beaten, robbed and accosted by a mob did not compel finding of past
persecution, and harm to associate was not ‘closely tied’ to petitioner). Further,
the BIA did not err in finding that Castillo failed to establish membership in a
cognizable social group. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29
(9th Cir. 2016); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)
(applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or
random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus,
Castillo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Castillo’s CAT
claim because he did not demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by the Mexican government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-72193
Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --